Bob Casey on Abortion

Democratic Sr Senator (PA)

Plan B morning-after pill is contraception, not abortion

Q: The FDA has said that Plan B, the morning-after pill, can be sold over the counter. Are you in favor?

SANTORUM: No, I’m not. I agree that it is an abortifacient, and that it’s dangerous to give a dose of hormones equivalent to one third of a whole
series of birth control pills to someone without any kind of doctor supervision.

CASEY: Yes, I’m in favor. I think what emergency contraception is contraception.

Q: But you do believe life begins at conception?

CASEY: I do.

Q: If this was
fertilized, would you call it abortion?

CASEY: The science is clear on this. It is contraception, and I support it. I think we’ve got to make it widely available, and I think that’s one of the ways we reach common ground on the very tough issue of
abortion: emergency contraception can reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies. That’s what we should emphasize.

SANTORUM: The science is clear. In fact, it is an abortifacient in certain circumstances.

Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned

Democratic Senate candidate Robert P. Casey Jr., who opposes abortion, believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. “You can’t say you have the position I have and not believe that,” Casey said in a recent interview.

No embryonic stem cell research; adult research ok

Q: Would you explain your stance on embryonic stem cell research and human cloning?

A: I support the current federal policy on embryonic stem cell research.

Q: How would you vote if the Castle bill came to you in the Senate? [The Stem Cell Research
Enhancement Act, known as the Castle bill, would allow embryonic stem cell research on so-called “left over” embryos from in-vitro fertilization clinics.]

A: I would oppose the Castle bill to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research.
As a US Senator, I will strongly support funding for stem cell research that doesn’t destroy an embryo. There are many promising techniques under development that don’t require destroying the embryo and there’s good reason to hope that soon we’ll be
able to remove the politics from this issue. I also strongly support increased federal funding for research on stem cells derived from adult cells, bone marrow and placentas - areas where tremendous progress has already been made.

Source: Valerie Schmalz, IgnatiusInsight.com interview
, Jul 29, 2005

Exceptions to save life of mother, rape & incest

Q: What is your position on legal protection for unborn children from the moment of conception if Roe v. Wade is overturned? What exceptions would you require: a) life of the mother b) rape & incest c) fetal deformity?

A: Support a) Life of the mother.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade, a PA bill would contain exceptions for rape, for incest, and for the life of the mother. I would strongly support that bill because it would have the effect of reducing the number of abortions in PA.

Supports Legal Protection for Human Life from Conception

Voted YES on restricting UN funding for population control policies.

Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.

Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.

Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term "targeted low-income child" to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term "child" includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:
Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman's coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus.LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 46-52

Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected.
OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)

Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.

Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.

Letter of Support from Family Research Council:

Recent reports indicate that Planned
Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions. Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion industry.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:

have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;

were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;

were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and

were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use.
I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Status: Vetoed by Pres. Bush Bill passed, 63-34

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues.
The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Public funding of abortions"

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues.
The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Parental notification for abortions by minors"

Christian Coalition publishes a number of special voter educational materials including the Christian Coalition Voter Guides, which provide voters with critical information about where candidates stand on important faith and family issues.
The Christian Coalition Voters Guide summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Requiring religious groups to cover birth control & abortion in insurance"